Chair calls for abstentions

[David A Foulkes]

The chair puts the question and calls for affirmative and negative votes and also abstentions. (Yes, I know he shouldn't, but he doesn't know he shouldn't.) Voting is done by show of hands.

Page 408 prevents interruptions during the taking of a vote. Page 244 (l. 1-2) states the Point of Order may be raised immediately following the announcement of the result of the vote.

However, p. 244(e) mentions the violation of a rule "protecting a basic right of an individual member (p. 255)." Page 255 indicates these "basic rights" include attending meetings, making motions, speaking in debate, and voting. However, abstaining is not voting. So, is the "right" to abstain (i.e. to not vote) a "basic right?" And thus, would a Point of Order regarding the call for abstentions be in order at the moment the chair calls for abstentions, or must it wait until the chair announces the results of the vote?

[Dan Honemann]

The chair puts the question and calls for affirmative and negative votes and also abstentions. (Yes, I know he shouldn't, but he doesn't know he shouldn't.) Voting is done by show of hands.

Page 408 prevents interruptions during the taking of a vote. Page 244 (l. 1-2) states the Point of Order may be raised immediately following the announcement of the result of the vote.

However, p. 244(e) mentions the violation of a rule "protecting a basic right of an individual member (p. 255)." Page 255 indicates these "basic rights" include attending meetings, making motions, speaking in debate, and voting. However, abstaining is not voting. So, is the "right" to abstain (i.e. to not vote) a "basic right?" And thus, would a Point of Order regarding the call for abstentions be in order at the moment the chair calls for abstentions, or must it wait until the chair announces the results of the vote?

Such a point of order must be raised immediately following the announcement of the result of the vote, but why bother? Just show your chairman the sentence in RONR on page 43, lines 25-30, at some convenient time.

And when you read it yourself, see if it makes any sense at all to say that calling for abstentions deprives members of their right to abstain.

[David A Foulkes]

Such a point of order must be raised immediately following the announcement of the result of the vote, but why bother? Just show your chairman the sentence in RONR on page 43, lines 25-30, at some convenient time.

Of course (I failed to include that citation, but I had it in mind of course), and one can only hope he will agree, and not be one of those chairs we so often read about on this forum whose favorite song lyric was written by Paul Anka.

And when you read it yourself, see if it makes any sense at all to say that calling for abstentions deprives members of their right to abstain.

Hmmm..... I'd say no, since a member could "abstain" from abstaining by not responding to the call for abstentions anyway. Unless you meant otherwise.

[Dan Honemann]

Hmmm..... I'd say no, since a member could "abstain" from abstaining by not responding to the call for abstentions anyway. Unless you meant otherwise.

I meant that a member abstains regardless of whether or not he responds to the chair's call for abstentions, and so I have no idea what the last paragraph of your original post is all about.

[Chris Harrison]

I meant that a member abstains regardless of whether or not he responds to the chair's call for abstentions, and so I have no idea what the last paragraph of your original post is all about.

I am not completely sure what David is asking but I wonder if he means that since there is a basic right of membership that members can vote if that would extend to there being a basic right to not vote as well? For example, say that it is a small assembly so everyone can tell who voted and who did not. There has been a counted vote and everyone had voted but one member who abstained and the tally was a tie and the assembly not wanting the vote tied tells that member that he MUST vote. The member (who really had no opinion on the motion) votes in favor of it causing the motion to be adopted. Would this member having been ordered to vote (and it affecting the result of the vote) rise to the level of a p. 244(e) violation?

I would say that it wouldn't because the member could have just refused to vote and there is no way for them to make him vote as opposed to him jumping up and down screaming his vote and the assembly telling him that his vote won't be counted.

[Josh Martin]

I am not completely sure what David is asking but I wonder if he means that since there is a basic right of membership that members can vote if that would extend to there being a basic right to not vote as well?

Members do have a right to abstain, but a member may abstain by remaining silent or by responding to the call for abstentions, so no one's rights are being violated. Calling for abstentions, while unnecessary, does not violate anyone's rights.

There has been a counted vote and everyone had voted but one member who abstained and the tally was a tie and the assembly not wanting the vote tied tells that member that he MUST vote. The member (who really had no opinion on the motion) votes in favor of it causing the motion to be adopted. Would this member having been ordered to vote (and it affecting the result of the vote) rise to the level of a p. 244(e) violation?

I would say that it wouldn't because the member could have just refused to vote and there is no way for them to make him vote as opposed to him jumping up and down screaming his vote and the assembly telling him that his vote won't be counted.

Well, this seems to be a much different situation than what David is talking about, but I agree with you that if the member agrees to vote in such a circumstance, there is no continuing breach. An instance which might create a continuing breach would be a situation in which an assembly does something ridiculous like declaring that abstentions will be treated as votes in the affirmative.

[David A Foulkes]

Such a point of order must be raised immediately following the announcement of the result of the vote...

This answered my question.

I meant that a member abstains regardless of whether or not he responds to the chair's call for abstentions, and so I have no idea what the last paragraph of your original post is all about.

I was trying to ascertain if calling for abstentions was enough of a breach of voting procedure to warrant interrupting the process with a Point of Order, or if it had to wait until the chair announced the results. Which you answered. Thank you.

[Josh Martin]

I was trying to ascertain if calling for abstentions was enough of a breach of voting procedure to warrant interrupting the process with a Point of Order, or if it had to wait until the chair announced the results.

Nothing warrants interrupting the voting process with a Point of Order. A Point of Order regarding the conduct of a vote is raised immediately following the announcement of the result of the vote, since voting may not be interrupted. What is said on pg. 244(e) has no bearing on this rule, and only affects whether a Point of Order may be raised at a later time.

[Gary Novosielski]

Hmmm..... I'd say no, since a member could "abstain" from abstaining by not responding to the call for abstentions anyway.

Well, he would not be abstaining from abstaining. By not answering the call for abstentions (nor presumably for the Ayes or Noes), what he abstained from was voting, to exactly the same extent (but perhaps with more conviction) than someone who responded.

I always wondered what one is supposed to say when a chair calls for abstentions. We're told what to say if in favor, or if opposed, but the question "Any abstentions?" doesn't indicate what the expected response is. I always want to reply, "How should I know?"

My suggested example for a chair who insists on calling for abstentions: "As many as are in favor of the motion will say Aye. <pause> Those opposed will say No. <pause> Those abstaining will say nothing."

Then see if anyone says, "Nothing!"

[Josh Martin]

I always wondered what one is supposed to say when a chair calls for abstentions. We're told what to say if in favor, or if opposed, but the question "Any abstentions?" doesn't indicate what the expected response is. I always want to reply, "How should I know?"

In assemblies I've seen in which abstentions are called for, people usually say "Abstain."

[Tim Wynn]

Members do have a right to abstain...

So, could a special rule of order take away this right (e.g. all members must vote), or would such a rule have to be in the bylaws?

[Dan Honemann]

So, could a special rule of order take away this right (e.g. all members must vote), or would such a rule have to be in the bylaws?

The House has such a rule (Rule III, Clause 1), and finds it unenforceable.

An effective way of doing it would be to adopt a special rule of order requiring the vote of a majority (or whatever) of the members present (or of the entire membership), so that an abstention will have the same effect on the outcome of the vote as would a negative vote.

[J. J.]

The House has such a rule (Rule III, Clause 1), and finds it unenforceable.

An effective way of doing it would be to adopt a special rule of order requiring the vote of a majority (or whatever) of the members present (or of the entire membership), so that an abstention will have the same effect on the outcome of the vote as would a negative vote.

There is a similar rule in the Pennsylvania Senate (Rule XXII), that was subject to a parliamentary inquiry in 1980. The chair, responding to the inquiry responded that the Senate could:

1. vote to hold the abstaining member in contempt.

2. Hold a hearing on the matter.

3. Overlook the matter entirely.

So far as I know, any such violation of Rule XXII has been "overlooked entirely."